Re: additional requirement: cooperation

[Shane Kerr <shane@ripe.net>]

On 2001-11-12 10:34:25 -0800, Michel Py wrote:
> These tunnels are annoying in the sense that they could be a loophole if
> someone wanted to bypass the requirements.
> 
> What about:
> 
>     Two sites are "direct neighbours" if they are able to exchange
> **  traffic betwen their sites directly, without IPv6 datagrams being
>     processed by a router located at some third site.
> 
> > "A multihoming strategy MAY require cooperation between a site
> > and its transit providers, but MUST NOT require cooperation
> > directly between the transit providers except for direct neighbors".

How about we leave the "except" off and revisit it if it seems really
necessary later on?  I worry that any protocol that requires
coordination between competitors is doomed to failure.  :(

-- 
Shane
Carpe Diem